The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("Commission")
filed a Motion for Stay of Proceeding ("Motion") dated July 23, 1999,
to which Complainants joined and Respondents did not object. Commission raises
the following three specific reasons in support of its motion: "to prevent
duplication of effort by the parties; to prevent excessive unnecessary costs for
[commission]Ö; and also because of the principles of res judicata and
collateral estoppel". Commissionís Memorandum, July 23, 1999, p.2.
Commission focuses primarily on its last argument of res judicata and collateral
estoppel to persuade the undersigned Human Rights Referee to stay the
proceeding.

Commission did not present a satisfactory basis to stay the current
proceedings, but rather relied on the theories of res judicata and collateral
estoppel which are the possible consequences of what could occur if the
proceedings are not stayed. It is not the undersigned Human Rights Refereeís
duty to assist the lawyers in preventing the effects of res judicata and
collateral estoppel. Complainants may bring a lawsuit in the forum of their
choice. Here, the Complainants commenced a claim with the commission

on May 26, 1998 and one year later, on July 13, 1999, Complainants filed a
parallel suit in federal court. The Commission provides an accurate analysis in
support of its argument for res judicata and collateral estoppel, but those are
not the true issues here. Here, the issue is whether or not to stay proceedings,
presently. Res judicata and collateral estoppel become issues when a
party is trying to get "two bites of the same apple" after a
claim or issue has already been decided. Res judicata and collateral estoppel
prevent that party from doing so. Therefore, I will not address in further
detail that proposed reasoning for staying the present case.

Commission argues that it is "well established that [commission] hearing
officers stay [commission] proceedings when the Complainants file a similar
action in U.S. District Court". Commissionís Memorandum, July 23, 1999,
p.2. Commission cites certain cases in support of this argument, but these cases
are certainly distinguishable from the present case. In CHRO ex rel.Sipe
v. National Cash Register Corporation, [commission] Complaint No. 9240230
(March 18, 1994), Commission requested a stay because there was an
"upcoming" federal court trial. In the present matter, no information
has been provided showing that there is a scheduled federal court trial. In CHRO
ex rel. Shane v. State of Connecticut, [commission] No. 8640389 (August 3,
1993), Commission requested a stay because there were two federal actions
pending in which discovery was currently being conducted. In the present matter,
no information has been provided showing that discovery is currently being
conducted in the parallel federal action. In CHRO ex rel. Yohanes Michaels v.
City of Norwalk, [commission] Complaint No. 9120320 (May 23, 1995),
Commission requested a continued stay because there was a Motion for Summary
Judgment pending in the federal action. In the present matter, no information
has been provided showing that there is a motion pending which would be
dispositive of the issues or claims at hand. Even if any of the above-stated
reasons exist in the present action, the undersigned Human Rights Referee still
would be extremely reluctant in granting a stay. There is no plausible reason
why the present action with the commission must be stayed while the federal
action is pending.

In regard to Commissionís concern for duplication of effort by the parties,
Complainants chose to file their discrimination claim with the federal court
while the present case with the commission still was pending. Complainants could
have waited for a final decision by the commission and then filed a federal
claim with the U.S. District Court for any relief not available or for claims
not decided by the commission. See Kendall Lewis v. Ames Department Stores,
Inc., Docket No. 3:97 CV 1214, Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, Droney, J.,
March 31, 1999. Again, no information has been provided showing that the parties
have begun any discovery or that the federal court is processing any current
motions in the federal case, whereas the parties in this case shall begin
discovery proceedings in less than one month. The results of discovery conducted
in the present case may be used by the parties in the pending federal case and
therefore the efforts of the parties will not be duplicated.

The commission has the authority to hear and has the ability to adequately
handle litigation of discrimination claims. The commission is the most
convenient forum for the present case. Complainants were not required to file
their housing discrimination claim with the commission, but could have filed
directly with the state or federal courts. See General Statutes 46a-98(a); 42
U.S.C.A. ß 3613(a)(1)(A). Complainants chose to file their housing
discrimination claim with the commission first. There exist adequate resources
easily accessible and Human Rights Referees who are available full-time to
preside over such claims in a timely manner and therefore there are no
unnecessary costs to the commission.

At this time, the need to stay or not to stay the proceeding is the question.
It should not be the objective of the commission to stay cases indefinitely or
maintain them on the docket while monitoring the pending federal case. The
present claim was filed on May 26, 1998 and certified to Public Hearing on May
27, 1999, a settlement conference was held on August 17, 1999, discovery shall
commence on September 29, 1999, and the Public Hearing shall commence on January
11, 2000. These dates were previously ordered on July 9, 1999 by the Human
Rights Referee, Lara Manzione, which incidentally was prior to Complainants
filing their federal claim.

The commission was created primarily to decide cases of this kind and is
fully capable of doing so. All parties should be able to resolve the matter as
expeditiously as possible, which in this case would be to comply with the
scheduling order already in place.

Conclusion

For all of the reasons set forth above, the Commissionís Motion to Stay
Proceeding is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this ____ day of September, 1999, at Hartford, Connecticut.